September 2007

In a decision issued on April 20, 2007, but published today because of a protective order, the GAO denied a protest by Olympus Building Services, Inc., B-296741.14; B-296741.15 against the award of a contract to Rowe Contracting Services, Inc., issued by the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) for janitorial services at the DIA Analysis Center. Olympus challenged…

In a decision issued by the Government Accountability Office, S4, Inc., B-299817, August 23, 2007, the disappointed offer protested an award to Croop-LaFrance, Inc., a lower priced offeror, under a Request for Proposals (“RFP”) to procure information technology desktop information services. The RFP specified that award would be based on a “technically acceptable-risk/past performance/price tradeoff,” which the RFP explained as follows:

For those Offerors who are determined to be technically acceptable, tradeoffs will be made between proposal risk, past performance and price. Proposal risk and past performance are of equal importance, and when combined, are considered significantly more important than price.

The agency determined that the ratings of past performance of S4, Inc. and Croop-LaFrance were essentially equal and that it was therefore appropriate that price should be the discriminator in making the source selection.  S4 contended that the agency should have drawn more detailed distinctions in the past performance evaluations and that the agency improperly ignored significant distinctions. This sort of protest is very difficult to win because it calls upon the GAO to substitute its discretion for that of the agency – something that the GAO has consistently refused to do, except where there is no rational basis or the agency’s source selection, or procurements laws or regulations have been clearly violated.

Predictably, the GAO stated that “Determining the relative merits of an offeror’s past performance information is primarily a matter within the contracting agency’s discretion; we will examine an agency’s evaluation only to ensure that it was reasonable and consistent with the solicitation’s evaluation criteria and procurement statutes and regulations.” Here, the RFP did not commit the Air Force to evaluating past performance only in the more selective manner that S4 desires.  Rather, based on the GAO’s review of the record, the finding was made that the Air Force’s approach was consistent with the RFP, and that the overall rating of Croop-LaFrance as “high confidence” under the past performance factor was reasonable.Continue Reading Determination of the Relative Merit of Past Performance Evaluation is a Matter of Agency Discretion

As Federal government contractors know all too well, Federal procurement has entered the electronic age in a big way.  The Federal Acquisition Regulation, at FAR 4.1201, now provides that “Prospective contractors shall complete electronic annual representations and certifications at http://orca.bpn.gov. Instead of submitting executed Representations and Certifications with bids and proposals, prospective contractors can…

Under the federal Competition in Contracting Act, an automatic stay of a federal procurement goes into effect if an unsuccessful bidder files a bid protest with the GAO either within ten days after a contract award is made or within five days of an agency debriefing to the bidder, whichever is later.  During the stay, “the contracting officer may not authorize performance of the contract to begin while the protest is pending.”  Nonetheless, the agency may override the automatic stay under certain conditions:

The head of the procuring activity may authorize the performance of the contract (notwithstanding a protest of which the Federal agency has notice under this section) –

(i) upon a written finding that –

(I) performance of the contract is in the best interests of the United States; or

(II) urgent and compelling circumstancesthat significantly affect interests of the United States will not permit waiting for the decision of the Comptroller General concerning the protest; and (ii) after the Comptroller General is notified of that finding. 31 U.S.C. § 3553(d)(3)(C).

Proesters offen fear that an agency will seek to override the automatic stay because of national security or other exigent circumstances, but an override rarely occurs because of the need to obtain higher authority approval.  (The Army Acuisition Corps actually published a manual in 2004 entitled the "The Competition in Contracting Act Automatic Stay Override Guide.")  Recently, in a case decided by the United States Court of Federal Claims, Superior Helicopter LLC and Ranier Heli-Lift, Inc. v. United States, three unsuccessful bidders protested a solicitation issued by the Forest Service (the “Service”), a component of the United States Department of Agriculture, for exclusive-use contracts for helicopter services to support firefighting efforts.  The three unsuccessful bidders for awards – Superior Helicopter LLC (“Superior”), Ranier Heli-Lift, Inc. (“Ranier”), and Erickson Air-Crane, Inc. (“Erickson”) – filed bid protests with the Government Accountability Office (“GAO”), triggering an automatic stay under the Competition in Contracting Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3551-56, of the contracts awarded in the procurement.  After the Forest Service acted on July 9, 2007 under 31 U.S.C. § 3553(d)(3)(C) to override the stay based on findings of exigent circumstances and the best interests of the government, the three helicopter operators filed suit in the United States Court of Federal Claims on July 11, 2007, seeking a temporary restraining order, a declaratory judgment, and preliminary and permanent injunctive relief from the Forest Service’s decision to override the stay.

The Court found that the Forest Service’s assertion that exclusive-use contracts were needed to face the significant risks posed by the 2007 fire season was misleading. No one doubted that the risks of fire this season were significant, but exclusive-use contracts would not have added more resources to combat that risk. The Forest Service’s overarching justification as to why the override was in the “best interests” of the United States and based on “urgent and compelling circumstances” was that the exclusive-use contracts were better than the CWN contracts at guaranteeing helicopter availability.  But, the Service provided no data showing that more resources would be made available than were otherwise at the Federal Service’s disposal under the pre-existing exclusive-use contracts and the CWN contracts upon which the Forest Service had previously relied in the immediately prior firefighting seasons. Continue Reading Court Overrules a Federal Agency Override of an Automatic Stay in a Bid Protest Case

A new federal rule allows federal contractors to count subcontracts given to companies owned by American Indian tribes and Alaskan communities toward small business contracting goals. The Civilian Agency Acquisition Council and the Defense Acquisition Regulations Council have agreed on a final rule amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement section 702 of the…

The Government Accountability Office (“GAO”) posted five protest decisions today and, not surprisingly, each protest was denied. One of those decisions, Metson Marine Services, Inc., B-299705, involved Metson’s protest of the award of a contract to Seaward Services, Inc. under a Request for Proposals (RFP) issued by the Department of the Navy, Military Sealift…